This is the third article I see where they name it a “license plate reading network” which it is not. Some panicked rebranding going on.

If they are making massive profits then profits are driving up the energy prices, not the war.

I think PETA euthanizing the animals is better than pet owners creative ways to kill their pets because shelters won’t take them.

They run no rejection animal shelters. Since people in general buy too many pups from breeders other animal shelters have to reject many animals that people neglect and try to get rid of. PETA does not reject any of those that get rejected by other shelters. This means they have a huge overflow of animals that people bring there. Sadly that means euthanizing ones that they do not have the money to support. If you are pro-pets and do not fund PETA to support all the neglected pets it feels a bit hypocritical to criticize them for euthanizing when the problem is that there is too many neglected pets.

Or “animals don’t deserve to be put in death camps”

You just gotta have morally correct opinions. Source: I’m blocked.

Here’s the store brand ones in a pancake as proof

changing the mind of some 6 or 7 billion people

You think we needed to change everyone’s mind before we abolished human slavery?

1 is easily fixed

Then why does everyone I know who keeps chickens in their backyard only have female chickens?

Yea, what animals do is not considered ethical in plenty of cases. We wouldn’t kill someone else’s baby because “lions do infanticide too” right :p

I usually just get the store brand ones but there’s plenty of brands to try. I’m not trying to guess where you’re from to know which brands are available to you, just try them out and see which you like :)

“There’s also a difference between having a full plantation and a couple helping hands at home”

Abolish it

Good question :)

1. Most people imagine only female chickens which means the male chicks are killed soon after birth which is unethical

2. Chickens eat their non fertilized eggs to recoup the nutrients it takes to lay them so stealing them has negative consequences for their health (eg fragile bones) causing which is unethical

3. The idea itself that you can take something from someone else just because you are stronger or smarter and they can’t stop you is the mindset of an oppressor or a bully and is inherently unethical

“Reduction of slavery could eradicate whippings”

Abolish it

Yeah vegan bacon is great :)

Compassion and empathy do not rely on someone else’s value to you, so instead of having “compassion” for bugs only because they serve a purpose in the ecosystem you rely on you, think about how they are living their life and having their own unique experience of the world, the same way your friends do.

1750 “partners”???

1 in 5 human deaths. If you compare it to total deaths humans cause it is minuscule. We kill 3 trillion animals a year (mostly for pleasure) vs the 4 million human deaths from fossil fuels.

Yet most humans support putting animals in death camps by buying animal derived products.

Although your claims might be true (we’ll see) they don’t address the argument you replied to which is that:

If you think that someone using AI is wrong because of the water or ecological impact then you should think much worse about people who chose to eat a meat burger instead of a vegetable one because the extra water usage and ecological impact are many many orders of magnitudes bigger than an AI prompt causes.